There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

The good half of the blogosphere appears, unfortunately, to have lost its senses over this post. Many bloggers I like and read regularly have mischaracterized this, not out of malice, but because they expect the worst from Obama (and really, who could blame them) and read the post through that prism. Some examples:

• Carol’s Closet calls it the “Obama Administration’s ‘Rat Out Your Neighbor Program.’”
• Michelle Malkin calls the initiative the “Internet Snitch Brigade.”
• Gateway Pundit called it the “Marxist Snitch Brigade.”
• Dan Collins wrote that “the White House has put out a call for narc minions to let them know about you, should you let it drop, even in casual conversation, that you oppose Nationalized Health Care.”
• Donald Douglas calls it “creepy.”
• Jeff Emanuel at RedState put a flashing emergency light at the top of his post labeling the white house.gov post a “call for informants” and exclaiming that “If you see anybody publicly opposing President Obama’s plan to implement a government-centric overhaul of the health care system, the White House wants you to report that person (or persons) ASAP.”
• Pundette called the whitehouse.gov post “truly astonishing“
• Even The Corner got it wrong, saying that the post was “asking people to rat out anyone expressing an opinion that the White House would classify as ‘fishy.’

And on and on and on and on. I like you guys, but you’re all wrong. The White house’s post says nothing about reporting your neighbors and everything about reporting what arguments are being made against the health care proposal. This is nothing more than the administration looking for help in what arguments may be circulating against its policies so that it can react to those arguments. (Why the administration of a president so touted for his organizational internet savvy needs help is another question.) UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh puts it quite correctly, I think:

In this instance, it strikes me that the terms “snitch” and “rat” are entirely misplaced (even allowing for some facetiousness on the poster’s part), as is the criticism of the government. The Administration is trying to promote a particular political agenda. They are naturally and reasonably interested in hearing what the arguments against it are, and doubtless sincerely believe that many of the arguments may be unsound or even factually false. They want to rebut such arguments, but they can’t do so promptly unless they hear about it promptly.

There’s nothing totalitarian about asking supporters to gather this information. And there’s nothing morally contemptible (as the terms “snitch” and “rat” suggest) in passing along this information, if you genuinely think that the information is misleading.

JammieWearingFool started out hysterical, then quoted the Volokh piece, but  he either missed the point or was writing tongue in cheek when he wrote that Professor Volokh “seems to believe I’m [JWF] about to be carted off by the Stormtroopers.” What Volokh wrote was:

Now of course if you think that the Administration would prosecute your friend for e-mailing you supposed “disinformation about health insurance reform,” then indeed you shouldn’t help the Administration do it. But, seriously, is that really likely?

I don’t see how JWF got that turned around.

Anyway, what is far more disturbing to me than the administrations “fishy” list — besides the obvious “what if Bush had done it?” double standard — is that the White house automatically classifies counterarguments as “disinformation” while it spews shit like an open sewer pipe. Which brings me back to The Corner, which redeems its hysteria earlier in its post with what I think is the best suggestion to come out of this mess:

The White House asked for a truth squad, so it seems to me that conservatives should submit any “fishy” statements from administration officials to flag@whitehouse.gov. But don’t expect any retractions anytime soon.

Just right!

UPDATE (8/7/09): Donald Douglas of American Power doubles down in a response to Washington Monthly’s Steve Bennen. First, Bennen:

It’s a shame yet another conspiracy theory reached the White House briefing room. ABC News’ Jake Tapper reports this afternoon:

Asked about Cornyn’s letter on Thursday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, “nobody is collecting names.”

The blog and tips email was because, Gibbs said, “we have seen, and as I’ve discussed from this podium, a lot of misinformation around health care reform. Some of it I think spread purposely. We have used on many occasions the Web site to debunk things that are simply not true. We ask people if they have questions about health care reform and about what they’re hearing about its affects on them, to let us know and we’d provide them information to show that that wasn’t true.”

Continued Gibbs: “but nobody is collecting names.”

Well, no, of course not. The very idea that the White House would be “collecting names” is about as legitimate as the idea that the president is a not a natural-born citizen. As nutty Republican conspiracy theories go, this was even more headache-inducing than most.

To which Douglas responds:

Hey, Benen, duh, THE OBAMACRATS PUT OUT THE CALL FOR NAMES, AND THEY POSTED A WHITE HOUSE E-MAIL ADDRESS SO OBAMALINGS COULD NAME NAMES!! THEY’RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING WITH NAMES!!

Don, where do you see that? You are inferring an awful lot. I’m with Douglas that I wouldn’t put it past the government, especially any Democratic administration (because they routinely attribute domestic policy positions of the other side to greed and evil) to gather names and harass its opponents. But the White House blog post didn’t ask for names. Period.

Now, if the administration does actively solicit names in this effort, I’ll reconsider my position. But Douglas (and I don’t mean to pick on him here, he’s one of many) simply assumes it is already going on.

My fight disagreement with my conservative colleagues has never been over what the administration is doing or is capable of doing, but if what the White House blog post said. Like a contract, I suppose, the parties’ conduct in performance can be used to interpret its terms. If that conduct tends to prove the administration meant the post as nefariously as my colleagues on the right seem to think, you’ll find me screaming as loudly as anyone.

Bunnin GM Supercenter salesman Michael Angelo Olinyk hands over keys to Doug Steiger of Orange County for his new SUV, a 2009 GMC Acadia. Steiger traded his 1998 GMC truck under the “cash for clunkers” program on Thursday at the Oxnard dealership.

I own a 1996 GMC truck, so I know the mileage sucks (14-15 MPG around town, maybe 20 MPG on a long road trip).  But the Acadia? It’s EPA mileage estimate is 17 MPG city/24 MPG highway. And that’s the EPA estimate. I don’t think I’ve owned a single car that got mileage even close to its EPA estimated mileage, so I have no reason to think the Acadia’s actual mileage will approximate the estimate, either.

It’s bad enough to give away money to sell more unaffordable hybrids. Now they’re giving away the taxpayers’ money for marginal mileage increases. I don’t care what this guy from the story drives. I do care that he’s getting thousands in taxpayer money to drive it.

I am writing with an update on the President’s March 20, 2009 Memorandum on Ensuring Responsible Spending of Recovery Act Funds. Section 3 of the Memorandum . . . barred registered lobbyists from having oral communications with government officials about specific Recovery Act projects or applications and instead required those communications to be in writing[.]

Following OMB’s review, the Administration has decided to make a number of changes to the rules that we think make them even tougher on special interests and more focused on merits-based decision making.

First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists.  For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process.  We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program.

(Emphasis mine, of course.)

I know, I know, the White House will say you’re still free to put your gripes in writing. But as Ace points out, does this mean no more phone calls to your congressman to complain about the stimulus?

The irony is that the White House blog post trumpeting this policy comes from “special counsel to the president for ethics and government reform.”

North Carolina lawmakers are pushing to give Apple Inc. a multi-million dollar tax break should the company bring an East Coast computer server farm to the state — an estimated $1 billion investment, according to a state official with knowledge of the recruitment efforts.

***

While it has been known that North Carolina lawmakers were working on changing tax rules to benefit one company, the name of the outfit has been kept secret. The state official said Catawba and Cleveland counties are potential sites.

I realize that our system of providing tax breaks for various conduct incentivizes all sorts of things, and it can be argued that this is just another type of incentive. But when you offer an incentive for converting to green energy, for example, anyone can take advantage of that, providing they have the means to do so. Existing North Carolina businesses can do nothing to take advantage of this break except threaten to move out of the state

Hugh Hewitt says this story should be “placed on every legislator’s desk in Sacramento, and a stack of copies carried around Arnold’s office.” No, thanks. Want to bring down taxes for everyone? Great, more power to you. Want to screw every other business in the state by keeping their rates high and giving privileged status to a newcomer? Forget it.

So anyway, Gateway Pundit has a post up saying that a bill proposed in the Connecticut legislature that would “put local laymen leadership over the Catholic Church in the state.”  And I’m thinking, “Can’t be.  No way.”  

And GP’s first link is to an “action alert” type of bulletin at Family Institute of Connecticut, which makes me doubt the story even more because action alert-type calls make me suspicious.  I’ve received way too many forwarded e-mails touting the latest outrage over which I’m supposed to write my congressman, phone the White House, or sign on online petition, only for the outrage to be entirely manufactured, and sometimes obviously so.  (“Write your congressman now to object to the Obama administration’s plan to make the military chaplain’s corps exclusively Muslim!”)

But then, GP also linked The Corner.  OK, slightly less skeptical now.  Uh oh.  The Corner’s post has three more warning signs against the authenticity of this story: (1) its title includes the word “outrage”; and (2) the writer learned of the “outrage” through an e-mail from a friend at the institute; and (3) it mostly quotes from the institute’s website.

So, what’s a skeptic to do?  Look  up the actual bill. Even then, I wasn’t convinced, because I had simply followed the link from a few different blogs, and I thought maybe someone posted a bogus bill to stir controversy.  So, to make sure I was really looking at the authentic website of the Connecticut General Assembly, I googled “Connecticut Legislature” and, sure enough, this seemed to be the real deal.

So I read the bill, and  . . . wow.  These folks are not exaggerating one bit.  

The bill would delete language from the existing statute regarding incorporation of Catholic churches (why there is a separate statute for them, I can’t say) that makes the pastor and local bishop ex-officio members of the corporation responsible for appointing two lay members (only one of whom is necessary for a quorum).  In place of that governing body, it would substitute a 7- to 13-member board of directors consisting entirely of lay people and making the pastor a non-voting ex-officio member of the board.  In short, it completely  reverses the roles of the pastor and congregation with regard to matters of finance, administration, and even “outreach programs and other services to be provided to the community.”  

The bill claims not to interfere with the “power, right, authority, duty or responsibility of the bishop or pastor in matters pertaining exclusively to religious tenets and practices,” (my emphasis), but that is a rather obviously bogus fig leaf.  It is an indicator that the bill’s author belongs to the school of thought that a person’s religion may not influence his public behavior.  Keep it in church, bub.  Your religions is protected by the First Amendment only in that we can’t dictate what you pray or how you worship in church.  Once you’re outside the sanctuary, all bets are off.

It also ignores that faith is interwoven in all of a church’s activities, not just its worship services.  Community outreach, charity . . . these are religious practices because they are undertaken in accord with the church’s teachings.  Who the hell (excuse me, heck) is going to draw the line between outreach and religious practice?

UPDATE: More at American Papist.

UPDATE #2: The Anchoress looks at the issue from a wider perspective, including religious/demographic trends in the U.S. and a philosophical discussion on church governance/doctrine.

I would love to see congressional Q & A sessions written into the constitution. This is one thing I think the Brits really have right, as their prime minister is required to go before the House of Commons regularly to answer challenges.

This requires more than glibness or poise from the executive. It also requires the executive to be ready to come the substantive defense of the policies pushed by the administration.  Is there anybody who thinks that would be a bad thing, regardless of who is in office?

The exchange between McCain and Obama on the cost of the new helicopters ordered for HMX-1, the Marine squadron responsible for the president’s helicopter transportation is, I think, notable in itself for at least two reasons.  First, McCain advocated, during his campaign, a British-style procedure to have the president appear regularly before Congress, which I think suggests that his question wasn’t necessarily sour grapes . . . he was dishing out no more than he was willing to take had he been elected and his proposal put into effect. Second, part of Obama’s response was . . . dare I say it . . . Reaganesque:

“The helicopter I have now seems perfectly adequate to me,” the president said to laughter. “Of course, I’ve never had a helicopter before. Maybe I’ve been deprived and I didn’t know it.”

I have no problem envisioning those words rolling off The Gipper’s tongue.

I voted for McClintock.

We remain a center-right nation in many ways—particularly culturally, and our instinct, once the crisis passes, will be to try to revert to a more free-market style of capitalism—but it was, again, under a conservative GOP administration that we enacted the largest expansion of the welfare state in 30 years: prescription drugs for the elderly. People on the right and the left want government to invest in alternative energies in order to break our addiction to foreign oil. And it is unlikely that even the reddest of states will decline federal money for infrastructural improvements.

If we fail to acknowledge the reality of the growing role of government in the economy, insisting instead on fighting 21st-century wars with 20th-century terms and tactics, then we are doomed to a fractious and unedifying debate. The sooner we understand where we truly stand, the sooner we can think more clearly about how to use government in today’s world.

As the Obama administration presses the largest fiscal bill in American history, caps the salaries of executives at institutions receiving federal aid at $500,000 and introduces a new plan to rescue the banking industry, the unemployment rate is at its highest in 16 years. The Dow has slumped to 1998 levels, and last year mortgage foreclosures rose 81 percent.

All of this is unfolding in an economy that can no longer be understood, even in passing, as the Great Society vs. the Gipper. Whether we like it or not—or even whether many people have thought much about it or not—the numbers clearly suggest that we are headed in a more European direction. A decade ago U.S. government spending was 34.3 percent of GDP, compared with 48.2 percent in the euro zone—a roughly 14-point gap, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. In 2010 U.S. spending is expected to be 39.9 percent of GDP, compared with 47.1 percent in the euro zone—a gap of less than 8 points. As entitlement spending rises over the next decade, we will become even more French.

One thing from the Newsweek article that really grates on me is its repeated insistence on referring to the Bush administration and the Republican congresses during his term as conservative.  Grrr.  Thanks a lot, big-spending Republicans!

I have an in-law from Sweden who visits twice a year, and over the years we’ve had some good-natured give-and-take over the ways in which our respective cultures and governments are better than the other.  A year or two ago, he was happy to see the center-right party in Sweden get voted into power.  The last visit here, he said to me — only partly in jest — that it was the first time he could say that the U.S. government was more liberal than his own.  Ouch.

Is the porn industry up next for a bailout?  If porn titans Joe Francis and Larry Flynt have anything to do with it, it will.

Yes, ladies and gentleman, the titans of pornography are begging for a bailout.

Joe Francis, creator of the “Girl’s Gone Wild” video series, and Larry Flynt, founder of Hustler, will ask Congress for a $5 billion bailout, according to TMZ.

Why does the porn industry need a bailout?  Because apparently even porn is getting smacked by the recession.

XXX DVD sales have taken a hit – about a 22% hit, according the TMZ.

Talk about a stimulus package!  And could anyone really deny that Johnny Pornstar is simply too big to fail?

Michelle jokes that this isn’t necessarily an unsuitable request to make of Hank Paulson, whom she has, after all, dubbed “The Naked Emperor.”  Ace thinks the request is a goof, and so does Michelle . . . initially, anyway:

Looks like it’s just a cheeky dig at bailout-mania. But who knows? Far-fetched attempts at grabbing TARP money have succeeded before…

I think this might be real.  The porn industry has every reason to believe it could ask for this, in light of how mainstream it seems to have become.  With the increasing pornification of the United States, why should the industry think its request would be denied automatically?

But I think Ace and Michelle are probably right.  This is a goof.  Man, I hope so.

H/T: HotAir Headlines.

See ScoopThis, American Pundit.

UPDATE: #dontgo is asking for your puns.

With gas-tax revenues plummeting, the state of North Carolina is looking seriously at taxing motorists for how far they drive.

If the “road-use tax” is implemented, it would at first be simple – with the state checking your odometer annually and taxing you based on how many miles you have driven. But transportation experts say new GPS technology could allow the state to charge people different rates based on when and where they drive, in an attempt to manage congestion.

I’m anticipating no objections from the ACLU, at least as long as the government promises not to to use the GPS monitoring to identify, track, or apprehend terrorists.

H/T: Michelle.